Nishant Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19376 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-374 Year-2024 Thana- DIGHA District- Patna ====================================================== Nishant Kumar S/O Amrendra Singh R/O Village- Sultanpur, P.SMakhdumpur, District- Jehanabad ( Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Surendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-06-2025 Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Surendra Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in Paragraph 8 of the bail petition, within the course of the day.
3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Digha P.S. Case No. 374 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 19.06.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of the Bihar Examination Act.
4. According to prosecution case, the informant alleges that, who is Principal of a School, one Rahul Kumar was giving the examination of B.B.O.S.E. instead of the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19376 of 2025(3) dt.19-06-2025 2/3 and one Rajiv Ranjan.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per allegation in the F.I.R. one Rahul Kumar son of Late Mani Kant Singh was giving the examination in place of the petitioner. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that the petitioner has no concerned with the aforesaid occurrence and in fact, the petitioner did not participate in the examination in question and he has no knowledge about who has sit in place of the him at the examination.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has no concerned with alleged occurence, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Patna, in connection with Digha P.S. Case No. 374 of 2024, subject to the conditions
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19376 of 2025(3) dt.19-06-2025 3/3 as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and with other following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Jyoti Kumari/- U T